Mixed Parallel–Sequential-Split Schemes for Time-Stepping Multiple Physical Parameterizations

Mark Dubal Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Mark Dubal in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
,
Nigel Wood Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Nigel Wood in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
, and
Andrew Staniforth Met Office, Exeter, United Kingdom

Search for other papers by Andrew Staniforth in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Close
Restricted access

We are aware of a technical issue preventing figures and tables from showing in some newly published articles in the full-text HTML view.
While we are resolving the problem, please use the online PDF version of these articles to view figures and tables.

Abstract

Split schemes for time-stepping physical parameterizations in numerical weather prediction and climate models are investigated within the context of simplified model equations. A symmetrized-splitting technique is applied to various parameterized systems containing fast and slow physics processes. The physics processes are represented by time-dependent forcing terms and linear damping/oscillatory terms. Finite-difference schemes, obtained from the splitting procedures, are examined to determine their stability properties, degree of splitting error, and truncation error. This analysis provides insight into the advantages and disadvantages of different splitting procedures across a range of possible parameterization scenarios. Many schemes obtained via splitting have time-step-dependent splitting errors, which can lead to inaccurate solutions when fast processes are present and the time step is large. Some splitting combinations, however, are more useful than others. The symmetrized-splitting procedure considered in this paper can produce stable first- and second-order accurate schemes, which have either no significant splitting errors or acceptably small errors relative to a steady-state solution. The consequences of this analysis for physics coupling strategies in realistic numerical weather prediction and climate models are noted.

Corresponding author address: Mark Dubal, Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB, United Kingdom. Email: mark.dubal@metoffice.gov.uk

Abstract

Split schemes for time-stepping physical parameterizations in numerical weather prediction and climate models are investigated within the context of simplified model equations. A symmetrized-splitting technique is applied to various parameterized systems containing fast and slow physics processes. The physics processes are represented by time-dependent forcing terms and linear damping/oscillatory terms. Finite-difference schemes, obtained from the splitting procedures, are examined to determine their stability properties, degree of splitting error, and truncation error. This analysis provides insight into the advantages and disadvantages of different splitting procedures across a range of possible parameterization scenarios. Many schemes obtained via splitting have time-step-dependent splitting errors, which can lead to inaccurate solutions when fast processes are present and the time step is large. Some splitting combinations, however, are more useful than others. The symmetrized-splitting procedure considered in this paper can produce stable first- and second-order accurate schemes, which have either no significant splitting errors or acceptably small errors relative to a steady-state solution. The consequences of this analysis for physics coupling strategies in realistic numerical weather prediction and climate models are noted.

Corresponding author address: Mark Dubal, Met Office, FitzRoy Road, Exeter, Devon EX1 3PB, United Kingdom. Email: mark.dubal@metoffice.gov.uk

Save
  • Caya, A., R. Laprise, and P. Zwack, 1998: Consequences of using the splitting method for implementing physical forcings in a semi-implicit semi-Lagrangian model. Mon. Wea. Rev., 126 , 17071713.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Cullen, M. J. P., and D. J. Salmond, 2003: On the use of a predictor-corrector scheme to couple the dynamics with the physical parametrizations in the ECMWF model. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 129 , 12171236.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Dubal, M., N. Wood, and A. Staniforth, 2004: Analysis of parallel versus sequential splittings for time-stepping physical parameterizations. Mon. Wea. Rev., 132 , 121132.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Durran, D. R., 1999: Numerical Methods for Wave Equations in Geophysical Fluid Dynamics. 1st ed. Springer-Verlag, 465 pp.

  • Oran, E., and J. Boris, 1987: Numerical Simulation of Reactive Flow. 1st ed. Elsevier Science Publishing Co., 601 pp.

  • Reisner, J., A. Wyszogrodzki, V. Mousseau, and D. Knoll, 2003: An efficient physics-based preconditioner for the fully implicit solution of small-scale thermally driven atmospheric flows. J. Comput. Phys., 189 , 3044.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Sportisse, B., 2000: An analysis of operator splitting techniques in the stiff case. J. Comput. Phys., 161 , 140168.

  • Staniforth, A., N. Wood, and J. Côté, 2002a: Analysis of the numerics of physics-dynamics coupling. Quart. J. Roy. Meteor. Soc., 128 , 27792799.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Staniforth, A., N. Wood, and J. Côté, 2002b: A simple comparison of four physics–dynamics coupling schemes. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130 , 31293135.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • Strang, G., 1968: On the construction and comparison of difference schemes. SIAM J. Numer. Anal., 5 , 506517.

  • Wedi, N. P., 1999: The numerical coupling of the physical parametrizations to the “dynamical” equations in a forecast model. ECMWF Tech. Memo. 274, 37 pp.

  • Williamson, D. L., 2002: Time-split versus process-split coupling of parameterizations and dynamical core. Mon. Wea. Rev., 130 , 20242041.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 255 83 19
PDF Downloads 122 27 3